Kerala High Court

Rahul Raj vs State Of Kerala on 14 February, 2025

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

B.A.Nos.1351/2025 & 8451/2024
                                    1


                                                     2025:KER:12643


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
 FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 25TH MAGHA, 1946
                       BAIL APPL. NO. 1351 OF 2025
       CRIME NO.1325/2024 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION,
                                ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED (RANK NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER):

              ARYA
              AGED 31 YEARS
              W/O. RAHUL RAJ, RAJ BHAVAN. GOVINDAMUTTOM,
              KAYAMKULAM. ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. PIN-690527.
              RESIDING AT KALAPURAYIL, PUTHUPPALLY VILLAGE,
              PUTHUPPALLY P.O., KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA
              DISTRICT, PIN - 690527

              BY ADVS.
              K.B.ARUNKUMAR
              PRATHAP.G.PADICKAL
              RANJIT BABU
              POOJA K.S.
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

      1       STATE OF KERALA
              REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
              KERALA, PIN - 682031

      2       THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
              KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.,
              PIN - 690502

      3       LATHA.S
              AGED 53 YEARS
              W/O. KRISHNAKUMAR, THE CHIEF BUSINESS MANAGER,
              NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, SREELAKAM,
              VAYANAKAM MURI, OCHIRA, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
              PIN - 690526

              BY ADV.
 B.A.Nos.1351/2025 & 8451/2024
                                 2


                                                 2025:KER:12643


              SRI.HRITHWIK C.S., SENIOR PP



        THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 14.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..8451/2024, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 B.A.Nos.1351/2025 & 8451/2024
                                    3


                                                     2025:KER:12643




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
 FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 25TH MAGHA, 1946
                       BAIL APPL. NO. 8451 OF 2024
       CRIME NO.1325/2024 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION,
                                ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1:

              RAHUL RAJ,
              AGED 34 YEARS
              S/O. RAJAN, RAJ BHAVAN,GOVINDAMUTTOM,
              KAYAMKULAM. ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. RESIDING AT
              KALAPURAYIL, PUTHUPPALLY VILLAGE,PUTHUPPALLY
              P.O., KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
              PIN - 690527

              BY ADVS.
              K.B.ARUNKUMAR
              PRATHAP.G.PADICKAL
              RANJIT BABU
              POOJA K.S.
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

      1       STATE OF KERALA,
              REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
              KERALA, PIN - 682031

      2       THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
              KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.,
              PIN - 690502

      3       LATHA.S,
              W/O. KRISHNAKUMAR,THE CHIEF BUSINESS MANAGER,
              NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,SREELAKAM, VAYANAKAM
              MURI, OCHIRA, ( IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 3RD
              RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 14.02.2025 IN
 B.A.Nos.1351/2025 & 8451/2024
                                    4


                                                 2025:KER:12643


              CRL.M.A. NO.1/2024)


              BY ADVS.
              S.K.AJAY KUMAR
              C.SIVANUNDAN(K/000030/2019)
              SRI.HRITHWIK C.S., SENIOR PP



        THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 14.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1351/2025, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 B.A.Nos.1351/2025 & 8451/2024
                                     5


                                                           2025:KER:12643




                    P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                  --------------------------------
              B.A.Nos.1351 of 2025 & 8451 of 2024
                   -------------------------------
             Dated this the 14th day of February, 2025


                                  ORDER

These Bail Applications are filed under Section 482 of

the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. These bail

applications are connected and therefore I am disposing of

these bail applications by a common order.

2. Petitioners in these bail applications are the

accused in Crime No.1325/2024 of Kayamkulam Police Station.

The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging

offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of

the IPC.

3. The prosecution case is that the husband of

the petitioner in B.A. No.1351/2025, who is the petitioner in

B.A. No.8451/2024, is an agent of the National Insurance

Company forged Insurance Policy Certificate bearing No.

571400312367600208971 by creating fake office seal and B.A.Nos.1351/2025 & 8451/2024

2025:KER:12643

logo of the said company, with intention to make unlawful

enrichment to him and to cause unlawful loss to the Insurance

Company. The prosecution further alleges that on 13.03.2024,

making one of the customers of the said Insurance Company

to believe that the said seal and logo created by the petitioner

are genuine, obtained an amount of Rs. 18,035/- and thereby

cheated the Insurance Company as well as the customer.

Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the above said

offences.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the defacto

complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

allegations against the petitioners are not correct and they are

not involved in the above case.

6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail

application. The Public Prosecutor, as per the report received

by him, submitted that, no criminal antecedents are alleged

against the petitioners. The counsel appearing for the defacto

complainant also opposed the bail application. B.A.Nos.1351/2025 & 8451/2024

2025:KER:12643

7. This Court considered the contentions of the

petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the

allegations against the petitioners are very serious. But the

prosecution can prove the case through oral and documentary

evidences. The custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not

necessary. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

case, I think these bail applications can be allowed on

stringent conditions.

8. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that

the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Chidambaram. P v. Directorate of

Enforcement [2019 (16) SCALE 870], after considering all

the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence

relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail

is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the

accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.

9. Recently the Apex Court in Siddharth v.

State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [2021(5)KHC 353]

considered the point in detail. The relevant paragraph of the

above judgment is extracted hereunder. B.A.Nos.1351/2025 & 8451/2024

2025:KER:12643

"12. We may note that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. (Joginder Kumar v. State of UP and Others (1994 KHC 189: (1994) 4 SCC 260: 1994 (1) KLT 919: 1994 (2) KLJ 97: AIR 1994 SC 1349: 1994 CriLJ 1981)) If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation we fail to appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused."

10. In Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of

Investigation [2023 KHC 6961], the Apex Court observed

that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it

is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case.

11. Considering the dictum laid down in the

above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of B.A.Nos.1351/2025 & 8451/2024

2025:KER:12643

these cases, these Bail Applications are allowed with the

following directions:

1. The petitioners shall

appear before the Investigating Officer

within two weeks from today and shall

undergo interrogation.

2. After interrogation, if the

Investigating Officer propose to arrest the

petitioners, they shall be released on bail

on executing a bond for a sum of

Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only)

each with two solvent sureties each for the

like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting

officer concerned.

3. The petitioners shall

appear before the Investigating Officer for

interrogation as and when required. The

petitioners shall co-operate with the

investigation and shall not, directly or

indirectly make any inducement, threat or B.A.Nos.1351/2025 & 8451/2024

2025:KER:12643

promise to any person acquainted with the

facts of the case so as to dissuade them

from disclosing such facts to the Court or to

any police officer.

4. Petitioners shall not leave

India without permission of the

jurisdictional Court.

5. Petitioners shall not

commit an offence similar to the offence of

which they are accused, or suspected, of

the commission of which they are

suspected.

6. Needless to mention, it

would be well within the powers of the

investigating officer to investigate the

matter and, if necessary, to effect

recoveries on the information, if any, given

by the petitioners even while the petitioners

are on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v.

B.A.Nos.1351/2025 & 8451/2024

2025:KER:12643

State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020

(1) KHC 663].

7. If any of the above

conditions are violated by the petitioners,

the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail

in accordance to law, even though the bail

is granted by this Court. The prosecution

and the victim are at liberty to approach the

jurisdictional Court to cancel the bail, if any

of the above conditions are violated.